- From: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 18:06:18 +0100 (BST)
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Time: 10:00:00 Fri Oct 10 2003 in America/New York duration 60 minutes which is equivalent to 15:00:00 Fri Oct 10 2003 in Europe/London Phone: +1-617-761-6200 (Zakim)#7332 irc: irc.w3.org #rdfcore 1: scribe - volunteer needed Please could the minutes conform to: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Apr/0216.html 2: Roll Call regrets: FrankM 3: Review Agenda 4: Next telecon 17 Oct 2003 1000 Boston Time Volunteer Scribe 5: Minutes of 03 Oct 2003 telecon as revised See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0071.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Oct/0078.html 6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions ACTION: 2003-08-29#2 danbri to investigation production of script for fixing up internal references ACTION: 20030919#6 em Poke Michael concerning xmlsch-02 ACTION: 20030919#7 ericm contact comm to get publication date ACTION: 20030919#8 danbri produce boiler plate for SOTD ACTION: 20030926#7 bwm link issue list to supporting documents (such as JJC I18N issue ACTION: 2003-10-03#1 jjc continue NFC dicussion with I18N ACTION: 2003-10-03#2 jjc change concepts NFC MUST to SHOULD ACTION: 2003-10-03#3 daveb change syntax NFC MUST to SHOULD ACTION: 2003-10-03#4 bwm ensure last call comment disposition is up to date ACTION: 2003-10-03#6 daveb change rdf/xml syntax to allow nodeELement as root ACTION: 2003-10-03#7 daveb add test case to test allowing omitted rdf:RDF ACTION: 2003-10-03#8 frankm reflect optionality of rdf:RDF in the primer ACTION: 2003-10-03#10 ericm produce boiler place for RDF LC2 SOTD template. If done earlier, editors will add document-specific bits. ACTION: 2003-10-03#11 daveb work with danbri to finish publishing script ACTION: 2003-10-03#12 daveb either work with jang to change the negative entailment test wording, or do it himself by monday 6th October 7: Status of Misc Actions 20030711#4 danc to get a test case for pfps-09 into OWL test case doc 20030926#3 DanC review jjc's revised I18N document in the context of request to advance 20030926#4 EricM review jeremy's document for inclusion in proposal to advance 2003-10-03#5 jjc check the w3c rdf validator handles omitted rdf:RDF 8: Publication Status 2003-10-03#9 ericm chase other groups on the 'heads up list' re reviews for RDF LC2 WDs Is the process getting easier? Lessons for next time? htmldiffs Objections Last call announcement See: http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#Objections 9: Handling lc2 comments Are there things we want to do differently this time? - Issues will be tracked in the issues list per DanC's advice - bwm to track comments and responses as before - We are hoping that we are not going to get many *new* comments, so typical responses should be of the form: - a reference to a part of the spec that answers a question - - no explanation - just rtfm and request to confirm that this is ok - this is a test of the clarity of the spec. We should expect folks to read the spec carefully. or - we've considered that already - what we decided, a brief rationale and the usual request for acceptance. - what is our policy on editorial clarification? We can try to be accomodating and try to cover every possible misinterpretation that folks come up with, or we can expect folks to read the spec carefully, and if the answer is there already, we don't have to spell it out. So far we have been pretty accomodating, but the more we change and the more we add, the more there is to go wrong. The chair suggests we not be in a hurry to modify the text. - I understand that WEBONT had the chairs triage all incoming comments and sent responses, i.e. only the chairs respond on rdf-comments. Do we want to try something similar. ------------------------------------------------------------ This agenda was produced by Jema, the Jena WG assistant, running on Jena 2
Received on Thursday, 9 October 2003 13:06:45 UTC